Liu, GuozhengCheng, DengfengDou, ShupingChen, XiangjiLiang, Min MinPretorius, P. HendrikRusckowski, MaryHnatowich, Donald J.2022-08-232022-08-232009-09-012014-11-17Mol Imaging Biol. 2009 Sep-Oct;11(5):303-7.<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0209-0">Link to article on publisher's site</a>.Epub 2009 Mar 27.1536-1632 (Linking)10.1007/s11307-009-0209-019326173https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/48487PURPOSE: To reduce accumulation in the abdomen by MORF/cMORF pretargeting, 111In was compared to 99mTc as the radiolabel. PROCEDURES: After receiving either 99mTc (MAG3)-cMORF or 111In (DTPA)-cMORF, normal mice were imaged and sacrificed for pharmacokinetics. Thereafter, tumored mice were pretargeted withMORF-antibody, 48 h later were given an injection of 99mTc- or 111In-cMORF, and finally were imaged repeatedly. RESULTS: The cMORF biodistribution in both normal and pretargeted tumored mice was influenced by its radiolabel. While excretion of both 99mTc-cMORF and 111In-cMORF was rapid and mainly through the kidneys, about 2% of 99mTc accumulated in the intestines compared to essentially no intestinal accumulation for 111In at any time. Tumor accumulation was unchanged. CONCLUSION: In applications of MORF/cMORF pretargeting intended to image organs deep within the abdomen such as the pancreas, radiolabeling with 111In may be superior to 99mTc.en-USAnimalsIndium RadioisotopesIntestinesMiceMorpholinesMorpholinosPositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsTechnetium CompoundsTissue DistributionWhole Body ImagingPretargetingAnticancerAntibodiesTumorRadioimmunotargetingBioimaging and Biomedical OpticsRadiologyJournal Articlehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/radiology_pubs/596367439radiology_pubs/59